SHEIKH NAWSHAD Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a public interest litigation whereby the petitioners have sought a direction from this Court that the licence granted in favour of Readymade Open Sky Parboiling Usna Mill be quashed and a CBI enquiry may be made to investigate the matter granting licence and a criminal prosecution may be launched against the respondents Nos. 2 to 7 and 10. It is also prayed that the respondents Nos. 2 to 10 may be stopped from functioning of Readymade Open Sky Parboiling Mill/Industry.

(2.) THE petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 are members of Gram Panchayat Kosmi and the petitioner No. 3 is a businessman. They have filed this petition that the respondent No. 10 has established Readymade Open Sky Parboiling Usna Industry at State Highway No. 31, adjacent to the village Kosmi. It is alleged that a licence has been obtained by them fraudulently and the said industry is causing pollution in the area.

(3.) A return has been filed by the respondents Nos. 6, 7 and 10 and in that, they have categorically stated that no -objection certificate was granted on 8.3.95 and it was placed before the Gram Panchayat on 29.4.95 and duly approved by the majority of the Panch as per the Resolution No. 12 of the Agenda of the Meeting which has been placed on record as Annexure R -6/1 with reply to the petition. It is also pointed out that a complaint was made before the Collector Balaghat and after hearing the concerned parties, the Collector rejected the complaint by order dated 22.10.96. The Collector has also recorded that the said complaint was made because of business rivalry and he had received information in this regard administratively. It is also pointed out that the petitioners have not filed present petition bonafidely, but for personal consideration because petitioner No. 3 has illegally converted the agricultural land into non -agricultural purpose, i.e. housing purposes and the industry of the respondent No. 10 is causing impediment in his design. It is also pointed out that the petitioner No. 3 wanted to purchase this are:.1 and gave proposals many times before the respondent No. 10 for selling the land, but the respondent No. 10 has declined to do so, and therefore, he, alongwith two Panchas, has filed this petition to harass the said respondent. No rejoinder controverting this assertion, has been filed by the petitioners.